I haven't been too woried about the SCOTUS....after all, the POTUS is a constitutional law professor and considering his involvement in the health care overhaul legislation, I can't imagine he and a whole bunch of others would not have read even the fine print.....I always say, if you want to really learn something, learn it well enough to teach it!

Doug

__________________ YD,E./PNB

Retired once, back at work, still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Further any lawyer or otherwise who is not versed in contitutional law and tries to tell you different, should really send their law degree back to Wal-Mart or the other two bit university that they got it from.

Posted by Scott Calabro

Perhaps Scott can tell us were he became versed in Constitutional law, if not maners.?

Canadians and French express similar satisfication with their systems.

The only issue, in my view, is cost. We are at a problem point with our debt, and converting to single payer would not, at first, be cheap. May not be feasible, but in terms of (over time) providing the best care to the most people at the least cost, the numbers pretty clearly stack up in favor of single payer.

Jeff,

As my dear old mum likes to say, we can afford the cost we just choose to spend our money in other ways i.e.:-

After having experience in both single payer and private systems, I choose a private system any day. The NHS is better now than it was when I moved to the UK in 1994, but its not as good as a private system.

Not included in the new health care insurance that would lower premiums (which are now rising):
- offer cross state line insurance selling
- tort reform

I wonder what the limits of liability will be for the trial lawyers under new legislation? Does this mean that with deep pockets, the lawyers can now get more money from the taxpayer when a doctor makes an error?

I have no problem with making health insurance a requirement to live in the USA. If health care insurance was compulsory, it would lower my Cook County real estate bill. If you want to look at risk pools, you can see what Indiana did with its high risk people with Indiana Comprehensive.

If you want to see a good private system, look at Germany. I wrote about this extensively in Al's health care post last year.

From the Wall Street Journal. Look how the UK is addressing its health care issues.

The United Kingdom's new coalition government, grappling with weak public finances and rising health care costs, announced an overhaul of the state-funded health system that it said would put more power in the hands of doctors and save as much as $30.12 billion by 2014.

The revamp essentially involves cutting huge swaths of bureaucracy and reinvesting the savings in urgent health care services. As a result, the government said, it will still increase National Health Service (NHS) spending in real terms every year for the next five years.

In one of the biggest changes, the government said it plans to eliminate a layer of financial managers and ask doctors instead to decide how the bulk of the National Health Service's $159 billion annual budget should be spent.
A central committee will allocate budgets to groups of general practitioners in each region, who will decide how the money is spent on the local population.
The government didn't say how many management jobs will be cut, but said the plan would reduce management costs by more than 45 percent over the next four years.
In a 60-page document outlining the overhaul, the government said the changes "will cause significant disruption and loss of jobs ... but it has rapidly become clear to us that the NHS simply cannot continue to afford to support the costs of the existing bureaucracy; and the government has a moral obligation to release as much money as possible into supporting front line care."

The NHS says it is the largest employer in Europe, with more than 1.3 million employees. Health care experts called the plan one of the biggest shake-ups in its 62-year history.

After having experience in both single payer and private systems, I choose a private system any day. The NHS is better now than it was when I moved to the UK in 1994, but its not as good as a private system.

.

Hi,

Many would disagree with your findings.

Foreign surgeons working in private hospitals have helped reduce NHS waiting lists, but a six month BBC investigation has uncovered an alarmingly high number of botched operations. Investigative reporter John Sweeney found some surgeons with failure rates above 50% for routine operations.

My experience comes from the US, Belgian and German private systems, and the UK and Italian NHS. I had only one private UK procedure done, and it was fine.

I owe my left leg to the dedication of a great German surgeon in Cologne in the private but compulsory system, versus the problems I found in the Italian system. If anyone wants to know more about what happened, let me know.

My experience comes from the US, Belgian and German private systems, and the UK and Italian NHS. I had only one private UK procedure done, and it was fine.

I owe my left leg to the dedication of a great German surgeon in Cologne in the private but compulsory system, versus the problems I found in the Italian system. If anyone wants to know more about what happened, let me know.

Hi,

No disrespect but you seem to be basing your statement "I choose a private system any day. The NHS is better now than it was when I moved to the UK in 1994, but its not as good as a private one" on one private UK procedure and no mention of any NHS procedures so hardly the most comprehensive survey on which to base your statement.

My experience comes from the US, Belgian and German private systems, and the UK and Italian NHS. I had only one private UK procedure done, and it was fine.

I owe my left leg to the dedication of a great German surgeon in Cologne in the private but compulsory system, versus the problems I found in the Italian system. If anyone wants to know more about what happened, let me know.

Hi,

No disrespect but you seem to be basing your statement "I choose a private system any day. The NHS is better now than it was when I moved to the UK in 1994, but its not as good as a private one" on one private UK procedure and no mention of any NHS procedures so hardly the most comprehensive survey on which to base your statement.

Also, unless done by a foreign surgeon, please bear in mind that the procedure could well be performed by the same surgons and nurses and possibly even the same hospital as the NHS use.
Even if it was performed in a private hospital again unless performed by a foreign surgeon, the surgeon and nurses would have been NHS trained as of course private hospitals in the UK as far as I know, do not take or pay for the training of student doctors or nurses

Scott there is no longer any point in going on with some of these people as they will NEVER agree with you and more to the point they CHOOSE not to. All I have read in opposition are independent cases exceptions if you will and as Edmund C. Berkley put it "An exception tests a rule, it never proves it".

Listen every single one of these people from overseas (who really should stay out of this) all ignorantly forget the little snippet Posted by Nick "failure rates above 50% for routine operations" YEA FOR THE NHS. Or this little one from domtoni "The NHS says it is the largest employer in Europe" AGAIN YEA for the NHS. So not only does the Govt control YOUR HEALTH CARE but they DO NOT promote anything else with such vigor. Lets see how about schooling NOPE, what about infrastructure (oh counties and some states here in the U.S. have actually reverted back to GRAVEL ROADS because they COULD"T AFFORD THE UP KEEP) (having issue with the link so here is the article Ian Koeck for The Wall Street Journal
SPIRITWOOD, N.D.—A hulking yellow machine inched along Old Highway 10 here recently in a summer scene that seemed as normal as the nearby corn swaying in the breeze. But instead of laying a blanket of steaming blacktop, the machine was grinding the asphalt road into bits.

"When [counties] had lots of money, they paved a lot of the roads and tried to make life easier for the people who lived out here," said Statesman County Highway Superintendent Mike Zimmerman, sifting the dusty black rubble through his fingers. "Now, it's catching up to them."

Outside this speck of a town, pop. 78, a 10-mile stretch of road had deteriorated to the point that residents reported seeing ducks floating in potholes, Mr. Zimmerman said. As the road wore out, the cost of repaving became too great. Last year, the county spent $400,000 on an RM300 Caterpillar rotary mixer to grind the road up, making it look more like the old homesteader trail it once was.

Paved roads, historical emblems of American achievement, are being torn up across rural America and replaced with gravel or other rough surfaces as counties struggle with tight budgets and dwindling state and federal revenue. State money for local roads was cut in many places amid budget shortfalls.

The heavy machines at work in Jamestown, N.D., are grinding the asphalt off road beds, grading the bed and packing the material back down to create a new road surface.

In Michigan, at least 38 of the 83 counties have converted some asphalt roads to gravel in recent years. Last year, South Dakota turned at least 100 miles of asphalt road surfaces to gravel. Counties in Alabama and Pennsylvania have begun downgrading asphalt roads to cheaper chip-and-seal road, also known as "poor man's pavement." Some counties in Ohio are simply letting roads erode to gravel.

The moves have angered some residents because of the choking dust and windshield-cracking stones that gravel roads can kick up, not to mention the jarring "washboard" effect of driving on rutted gravel.

But higher taxes for road maintenance are equally unpopular. In June, Statesman County residents rejected a measure that would have generated more money for roads by increasing property and sales taxes.

"I'd rather my kids drive on a gravel road than stick them with a big tax bill," said Bob Baumann, as he sipped a bottle of Coors Light at the Sportsman's Bar Café and Gas in Spiritwood.

Rebuilding an asphalt road today is particularly expensive because the price of asphalt cement, a petroleum-based material mixed with rocks to make asphalt, has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Gravel becomes a cheaper option once an asphalt road has been neglected for so long that major rehabilitation is necessary.

"A lot of these roads have just deteriorated to the point that they have no other choice than to turn them back to gravel," says Larry Galehouse, director of the National Center for Pavement Preservation at Michigan State University. Still, "we're leaving an awful legacy for future generations."

Some experts caution that gravel roads can be costlier in the long run than consistently maintained asphalt because gravel needs to be graded and smoothed. A gravel road "is not a free road," says Purdue University's John Habermann, who organized a recent seminar about the resurgence of gravel roads titled "Back to the Stone Age."

Paving grew in popularity in the early 20th century as more cars hit streets and spread when the federal government built the Interstate Highway System.

Over the years, many of the two-lane arteries that connect country roads with metro areas have deteriorated under rising traffic and the growing weight of farm combines, logging trucks and other heavy equipment.

Frederick Wachtel, county engineer in Coshocton County, Ohio, says his budget, largely driven by fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, was off 5% last year, the first decline in nearly 20 years. He is now letting some of his roads return to nature.

In Spiritwood one day recently, a soft breeze carried the scents of cow manure and hot asphalt over the tall broom grass. The giant Caterpillar chugged along at a speed of 2.4 feet per minute and pulverized Old Highway 10 into a black dust with chunks of rock and pavement. A piece of equipment following behind rolled the surface flat.

The machines rumbled along a path carved by homesteaders' covered wagons in the 1800s. Over time, grain elevators and railroad depots sprung up along the route, which became known as the Old Red Trail. Later, the road was paved and renamed Highway 10.

After Interstate 94 was built alongside the road in the 1950s, it became Old Highway 10. Traffic volumes gradually dropped until Old 10 became a lazy backcountry road dotted with abandoned farmsteads. In the 1960s the state gave Old 10 to the counties it ran through, leaving them to pay for upkeep. North Dakota's Statesman County got a 30-mile stretch.

The gift became a burden. The Statesman highway department, which gets the bulk of its funds from local property taxes, state fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, let the road fall into disrepair as it juggled other projects. Every year without major maintenance, the road became more expensive to fix.

Judy Graves of Ypsilanti, N.D., voted against the measure to raise taxes for roads. But she says she and others nonetheless wrote to Gov. John Heaven and asked him to stop Old 10 from being ground up because it still carries traffic to a Cargill Inc. malting plant. She says the county has mismanaged its finances and badly neglected roads.

"Our expenses outweigh the income," says Mr. Zimmerman, who has been with the county highway department for nearly 30 years. He says the county will pay about $2,600 per mile annually for the newly ground-up road, as against about $75,000 per mile to reconstruct it.

Gayne Gasal, who lives along the redone stretch of road, says it has turned out "better than we all thought." But Sportsman's Bar owner Hilda Kuntz worries that the classic cars and bikers that roll through town in the summer will stay away.

"It's going to kill my business," she said.). In short the NHS is responsible for ridiculously high taxes and they get nothing but crappy doctors out of it. Sounds like a great idea of you want to bankrupt a country.

Scott there is no longer any point in going on with some of these people as they will NEVER agree with you and more to the point they CHOOSE not to. All I have read in opposition are independent cases exceptions if you will and as Edmund C. Berkley put it "An exception tests a rule, it never proves it".

Listen every single one of these people from overseas (who really should stay out of this) .

Scott there is no longer any point in going on with some of these people as they will NEVER agree with you and more to the point they CHOOSE not to.

Damian, I must respectfully disagree. I know that when I engage in one of these political discussions, I may have an opinion, but I always read the posts of others with an open mind, and when the information they use to support their positions comes from a credible source (and that means NOT one from a source with a decided political "mission", such as Fox News Network), I must admit that I have changed my opinion at times.

I was a firm Obama supporter at first...but, as things have gone on and on, I have come to support him less and less. What has not changed, sadly, is the way the Republican Party has nearly every time block voted AGAINST all Democratic proposals. It seems totally incredulous to me that each and every Democratic proposal could be totally unacceptable to all Republicans, nor that it could fail to benefit the constituents in the areas represented by Republicans.

Given the current partisan polarization in our government, I'd rather support a president who seems to be right some of the time than a party that seems to be wrong ALL of the time. Give me a reason to change my mind, Republicans, and I will do so, but until then IMHO you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Our country is in turmoil, I sincerely doubt that Obama will be re-elected, but what worries me is what might take his place. Keep in mind people were feeling SO politically disenfranchised that they elected a Democratic president and gave the Democrats majorities in both houses of congress. If the Republicans had been doing such a good job, do you think that would have happened?

So, I'd suggest you might well benefit from a bit more confidence in the intelligence of the people who post here in our political discussions. I'd bet that those who are so closed minded as you suggested would be LESS likely to post here, having already made up their minds to the point that rational discourse would not make a difference, so why bother? However, having said that, I must ask.......are you one of those who has already made up his mind to the point that rational discourse could not bring about a change in your opinions? If so, you are truly part of the problem you, yourself, decried in the post I quoted!

Cheers from Doug!

__________________ YD,E./PNB

Retired once, back at work, still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have a hard time disagreeing with anything you have said, with the exception of a second term for Obama, most polls taken now are Obama against "a" Republican.
I'm fairly sure when they change that to Obama against Romney, Palin, Limbaugh, Guliani....................the numbers will change.

Gotta hope you're right, Jim! As much as he has been dissed, Obama is head and shoulders above any of those you mentioned......and put Newt Gingrich into the fray and I bet the numbers will be even higher on Obama's behalf!

Doug

__________________ YD,E./PNB

Retired once, back at work, still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.